Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2002

Home

98 Page 2 -- August 25, 2002 Taking - Landowners seek change from farmland to residential Did loss of land's value result in a raking? OHIO (06/28/02) -- Landowners attempted to develop their farmland for resi- denti~ deveiopment. To do so, they ¢pplJ. ed for a zoning change for the prop- cay. The board of trustees denied due request, and the landowners responded by suing the board, seek2ng a court order and compensation. The lower court, decided in favor of the board, and the laridowners ap- pealed. The court af:fn-med the board's decision, and the landowners appealed again, contending the board's decision was arbitrary and un.reasonable. They also argued the denial of their request amounted to a "taking" because of lost profits. Further, the landowners argued other, sirnSlar tracts of land nearby were rezoned and the board's decision amounted to a den/al of equal protection and due process. DECISION: A ~rmed. ]'"ne refusa/to rezone did not constitute a taking. The board's decision was not ~bitr-a.ry and un.reasonable. The fact the land. could have been more valuable as residential did not mean there was a "tak- Lng." Ir was pointed out the land could have been used for far-m/rig operations. The court also found no evidence of intention',.fl or purposeful discrimina- tion, and the landowners were not den/ed any equal protection rights. Citation: Mays v. Board of Trt~srees of Miami Townshilo, 3/fontgomerT' CottnD.2, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 2nd App. Dist., No. ]8997 (2002). see also: Shemo v. May, field t'teighra, 722 N.F,.2d ]OJ$. Re-zoning - Neighbors object to rezoning for office, housing, and retail Did neig/~orx have standing to sue? GEORGL4, (07/0,3/02) -- Ceaam property was rezoned for development for a mixture of uses including office, retail, and housing. 1'"ne Garden Hills Civic Assodation sued, al_legmg the rezoning was illegal and unconstitutional. Ar the a-/a/, the only homeowner to tesri.f'y complained the new develop- ment would harm her property interests by. increasing the. level of noise, hght, ira.fflc, ct/me, and pollution. A real estate appraiser testiEed that shadows from the buildings would decrease the value of the property,.. The appraiser also a~eed the increased traffic, light, and noise would lower property values. The lower court dete~wnined the homeowners lacked standing to bring th.is action. The association appealed. DECiSIO~q: :X~irmed. The aeigSborhood association lacked standing because ir did not own prop- e,? '.~;ec:ed b'~ the rezoning. It ,;vas dere~ed th%property could have been developed in the same .xn'~'-~maer ,nor ~.o the re-zon/n~. Lq fact. the new ,sam_ ordinance was more res~cff,/e ~an the prior version in that onl,/2.8 rmllion square feet could be I I I I I I I I I I